Huang v. High Life Air Conditioning, Heating & Security Inc., 2013 HRTO 175

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Qiting Huang Applicant

-and-

High Life Air Conditioning, Heating & Security Inc. and Yorktech Supply Ltd. Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: January 30, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 175 Indexed as: Huang v. High Life Air Conditioning, Heating & Security Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Qiting Huang, Applicant Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex. The Application alleges that a reason for the termination of the applicant’s employment is because of pregnancy. The Application indicated that the facts of the Application are part of a claim to the Ministry of Labour that is still in progress. The Tribunal therefore issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, inviting the parties to file submissions by January 10, 2013 on whether it is appropriate to defer the Application pending the outcome of the other proceeding.

2The applicant filed submissions on the deferral issue. The respondents filed submissions addressing the allegation of discrimination, but they did not file submissions on the issue of whether it is appropriate to defer the Application.

POSITION OF THE APPLICANT ON DEFERRAL ISSUE

3The applicant takes the position that her Application should not be deferred because her claim to the Ministry of Labour alleges a violation of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, (“ESA”) with respect to not receiving pay in lieu of notice. She argues that her claim at the Ministry of Labour takes issue with the fact that she only received 3 days pay in lieu of notice, when she had worked for the respondents for a period of time justifying more pay in lieu of notice. The applicant’s submissions state that the reason for the termination of her employment is not an issue in her ESA claim.

DECISION NOT TO DEFER

4Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. In each case, the Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

5The respondents have not provided submissions, and there is nothing to lead me to believe that the applicant is claiming in the ESA proceeding that one of the reasons for the termination of her employment was her pregnancy. It does not appear that there is any possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. Therefore, it is not appropriate that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of the ESA proceeding. If the parties discover at any point that the ESA proceeding has expanded to include an assessment of the reason(s) for the termination of the applicant’s employment, then they must notify the Tribunal.

DIRECTIONS

6The processing of the Application shall not be deferred. The respondents have not yet filed a completed Form 2. They must do so immediately, being sure to indicate, at the appropriate question on the Form, whether they are interested in trying mediation.